1

2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28


J S-6




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
STARLIGHT CINEMAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGAL ENTERTAINMENT GROUP and
DOES 2 through 50, inclusive,

Defendants.






)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CASE NO. CV 14-5463-R

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO DISMISS ALL CLAIMS
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CIVIL PROCEDURE 12(b)(6)
Before the Court is Defendants Motion to Dismiss, which was filed on August 20, 2014.
Having been thoroughly briefed by both parties, this Court took the matter under submission on
September 18, 2014.
On a motion to dismiss, the trial court takes all well-pleaded facts in the complaint to be
true and determines whether, based upon those facts, the complaint states a claim upon which
relief may be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). See Alperin v. Vatican Bank, 410 F.3d 532, 541
(9th Cir. 2005). To state a claim, the complaint must contain factual assertions that make the
Case 2:14-cv-05463-R-AS Document 28 Filed 10/23/14 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:234


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2



claimed relief not merely possible, but plausible. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009);
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Although factual assertions are taken as
true, the court does not accept legal conclusions as true. Id.
A motion to dismiss tests the legal sufficiency of the claims alleged in the complaint. See
Cairns v. Franklin Mint Co., 24 F. Supp. 2d 1013, 1023 (C.D. Cal. 1998). A claim is properly
dismissed for lack of a cognizable legal theory, absence of sufficient facts alleged under a
cognizable legal theory, or seeking remedies to which plaintiff is not entitled as a matter of law.
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dept., 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988); King v. California, 784 F.2d
910, 913 (9th Cir. 1986).
I. Cartwright Act
To state a claim under the Cartwright Act, the complaint must allege: (1) the formation and
operation of a conspiracy; (2) a wrongful act or acts done pursuant to the conspiracy; and (3)
damage resulting from those wrongful acts. Cellular Plus, Inc. v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.Rptr.2d
308 (Cal. Ct. App. 1993). The pleading of Cartwright Act violations demands a high degree of
particularity. G.H.I.I. v. MTS, Inc., 195 Cal.Rptr. 211, 216 (Cal. Ct. App. 1983). General
allegations of a conspiracy unaccompanied by a statement of facts constituting the conspiracy and
explaining its objectives and impact in restraint of trade will not suffice. Id. Instead, when
pleading an antitrust violation, allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the
speculative level. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 553 (2007). The complaint must
allege facts such as a specific time, place, or person involved in the alleged conspiracies to give a
defendant seeking to respond to allegations of a conspiracy an idea of where to begin. Kendall v.
Visa USA, Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1046-47 (9th Cir. 2008).
Here, Plaintiff alleges that based on information and belief, Defendant demands, and
distributors agree to exclusivity provisions. However, these allegations are mere legal
conclusions, without any specifics, and are therefore insufficient to show the formation and
operation of a conspiracy. Furthermore, Plaintiffs allegation that Defendant used its strong
economic position in the market to obtain preferential treatment from distributors is insufficient to
show conspiratorial conduct rather than mere unilateral conduct.
Case 2:14-cv-05463-R-AS Document 28 Filed 10/23/14 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:235


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3



Moreover, Plaintiff has failed to allege any harm to competition as required by the
Cartwright Act. The Cartwright Act, like antitrust laws generally, is about the protection of
competition, not competitors. Clayworth v. Pfizer, Inc., 233 P.2d 1066, 1083 (Cal. 2010). In
order to successfully allege injury to competition, a claimant may not simply recite bare legal
conclusions that competition has been restrained unreasonably. Les Shockley Racing, Inc., v.
National Hot Rod Assn, 884 F.2d 504, 507-08 (9th Cir. 1989).
Here, Plaintiff relies on conclusions, without any supporting facts, that moviegoers have
been harmed. However, this is insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and
Plaintiff has therefore failed to plead a Cartwright Act violation. Therefore, Defendants Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiffs first cause of action under the Cartwright Act is granted.
II. Californias Unfair Competition Law
California's statutory unfair competition laws broadly prohibit unlawful, unfair, and
fraudulent business acts. Sybersound Records, Inc. v. UAV Corp., 517 F.3d 1137, 1151 (9th Cir.
20008). Unlawful acts are anything that can properly be called a business practice and that at the
same time is forbidden by law. Id. Unfair acts among competitors means conduct that threatens
an incipient violation of an antitrust law, or violates the spirit or policy of those laws because its
effects are comparable to or the same as a violation of the law, or otherwise significantly threatens
or harms competition. Id.
Here, Plaintiff has failed to plead a Cartwright Act claim, and therefore has also failed to
allege any unlawful or unfair business acts for purposes of the UCL. As such, Defendants
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs second cause of action for violation of Californias Unfair
Competition Law is granted.
III. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage
In California, the elements of the tort of intentional interference with prospective economic
advantage are:
(1) an economic relationship between the plaintiff and some third party, with the
probability of future economic benefit to the plaintiff; (2) the defendant's knowledge of the
relationship; (3) intentional wrongful acts on the part of the defendant designed to disrupt
Case 2:14-cv-05463-R-AS Document 28 Filed 10/23/14 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:236


1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4



the relationship; (4) actual disruption of the relationship; and (5) economic harm to the
plaintiff proximately caused by the acts of the defendant.
Sybersound Records, Inc., 517 F.3d at 1151; see also Korea Supply Co. v. Lockheed Martin Corp.,
63 P.3d 937 (Cal. 2003).
Here, the only wrongful act that Plaintiff attempts to plead is a Cartwright Act
violation. However, because Plaintiff has failed to successfully plead a Cartwright Act violation,
its intentional interference claim fails as well. Therefore, Defendants Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiffs third cause of action for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage is
granted.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED.
Dated: October 23, 2014.


___________________________________
MANUEL L. REAL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE
Case 2:14-cv-05463-R-AS Document 28 Filed 10/23/14 Page 4 of 4 Page ID #:237